I've been doing some thinking on what resources should be allocated to stymie anthropogenic global warming. Some figures: Anywhere between 88-98% of publishing climate scientists believe in some form of AGW, based on over 6 large scale surveys. In one survey, 41% of meteorologists and geophysicists in agreement with AGW thought the consequences would be "disastrous" and 40% thought they would be bad but not "disastrous", 19% voted "not necessarily bad". This reflects growing consensus over the slippery slope hypothesis (c02 --> warming --> glaciers melt --> methane hydrate released --> glaciers melt --> methane hydrate --> ..). It has been empirically demonstrated that the % of those that accept AGW theory increases as their "expertise" (number of published papers in climatology) increases. All these surveys are in the primary sources section of the wikipedia page "scientific opinion on climate change". So I'm faced with the dilemma of who to vote for in my country. (A) is really good with the economy but doesn't believe in AGW. (B) is bad with the economy and wants to create a trading scheme. Totally forgetting my actual predicament with who to vote for, how are policy makers supposed to act in a fashion that will maximize utility? Let us define utility (diverging from the economic definition for now) for the AGW scenario as "the net amount of non-negative human conscious time experienced". In my preliminary thoughts, I've found an approximate solution difficult to come by because of the possibility of some type of extropianism in the future - the extension of human life to other planets. This assumes that humanity will then live on for a long long time after that as it will guarantee non-destruction in the next ice age, and in this scenario it is highly likely humanity will have outgrown war like tendencies (otherwise we would be all gone by that time) or there are numerous purposeful structural impediments to self-destruction. The possibility (however remote) of the survival of humanity for such a long time into the future to the point of extropianism which guarantees even longer survival time monstrously skews any utility maximization approximation attempt, and should lead anyone with the objective function of maximizing utility previously specified to invest a lot of resources into curbing c02 emissions. Thoughts? Have I gone wrong somewhere?